Tuesday, October 11, 2016

OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS: US Fortune 500 firms use tax havens to avoid $717.8 billion in taxes

US Fortune 500 firms use tax havens to avoid $717.8 billion in taxes

US Fortune 500 firms use tax havens to avoid $717.8 billion in taxes

By Barry Grey 
7 October 2016
Only three days after the New York Times exposed how Donald Trump claimed paper losses of $916 million in 1995, which he could use to avoid paying any federal income tax over the ensuing 18 years, a new study was published showing that Trump’s legally sanctioned tax dodge is dwarfed by the standard practices of major US multinational corporations.
“Offshore Shell Games 2016: The Use of Offshore tax Havens by Fortune 500 Companies” was released Tuesday by three organizations—the US PIRG (Public Interest Research Group) Education Fund, Citizens for Tax Justice, and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. The report, based on an analysis of 2015 corporate tax filings, revealed that 73 percent of Fortune 500 companies “maintained subsidiaries in offshore tax havens,” which enabled them to avoid paying a total of $717.8 billion in US corporate income taxes.
How pervasive is legally and politically protected corporate tax avoidance in the US capitalist system? The amount of money the biggest US multinationals withhold by booking profits to subsidiaries—often paper companies—nominally located in offshore tax havens is some $270 billion more than the federal budget deficit for 2015, $428 billion.
$717.8 billion is nearly seven times the amount the US government spends on education each year. It is nearly 22 times the 2015 budget of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Health and Human Services budget is barely 3 percent of the taxes not paid by means of offshore tax havens.
A separate report by USA Today found that 27 companies in the Fortune 500 paid no federal tax for 2015, including General Motors, American Airlines, United-Continental Airlines and Xerox.
The same politicians, media pundits and government bureaucrats who repeat ad nauseam that “there is no money” for jobs, schools, health care, pensions or housing, oversee the de facto corporate theft of hundreds of billions in taxes.
According to the study, Fortune 500 companies are holding nearly $2.5 trillion in accumulated profits offshore for tax purposes. US tax laws, essentially written by corporate lawyers and lobbyists and rubber-stamped by the bribed lawmakers of both big-business parties, allow American-based multinationals to pay no taxes on these profits until they repatriate them back to the US. In the meantime, the corporations, which in many cases actually generated the profits either within the US or in places far distant from the countries where their tax haven subsidiaries are located, are able to deploy these profits to raise cash, invest, speculate, etc.
Of the Fortune 500 companies, 367 collectively maintain 10,366 tax haven subsidiaries. Of these, the 30 companies with the most money booked offshore collectively hold nearly $1.65 trillion overseas. They operate 2,509 tax haven subsidiaries.
The study notes that only 58 Fortune 500 companies disclose how much they would expect to pay in US taxes if their profits booked to offshore subsidiaries for tax purposes were reported as US profits. Just these firms would owe a total of $212 billion in additional federal taxes, equal to the entire state budgets of California, Virginia and Indiana combined.
The average tax rate these 58 firms pay to other countries on these profits is a mere 6.2 percent, making it clear that most of this income is booked to subsidiaries in countries that exact little or no corporate taxes.
The report concludes that US multinationals withhold $100 billion in federal corporate taxes every year by means of offshore tax havens.
What is involved here is legally sanctioned fraud facilitated by the regulatory agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Reserve, whose supposed function is to police big business. The corruption is open and brazen.
As the study puts it: “Corporate lobbyists and their congressional allies have riddled the US tax code with loopholes and exceptions that enable tax attorneys and corporate accountants to book US-earned profits to subsidiaries located in offshore tax haven countries with minimal or no taxes… often, a company’s operational presence in a tax haven may be nothing more than a mailbox.”
The report cites a 2008 Congressional Research Service report noting that American multinational companies “collectively reported 43 percent of their foreign earnings in five small tax haven countries: Bermuda, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Switzerland.”
It adds that the profits American multinationals claim to earn in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, countries with no corporate tax, total 1,884 percent and 1,313 percent, respectively, of these countries’ entire yearly economic output.
By far, the multinational with the biggest hoard of offshore profit holdings is Apple, which reports $214.9 billion. It would owe $65.4 billion in taxes if that money were to be brought back to the US. Other top offshore tax avoiders are Pfizer, at $193.6 billion; Microsoft, at $124 billion; General Electric ($104 billion) and IBM ($68 billion).
Goldman Sachs, which officially holds $28.6 billion overseas, reports having 987 subsidiaries in offshore tax havens. The study cites Goldman’s own web site as reporting that 537 of these are in Bermuda, despite not operating a single legitimate office in that country.
The $2.5 trillion that Fortune 500 companies report holding in offshore subsidiaries today is double the level reported by companies in 2009.


October 14, 2016

Meet the four Black Lives Matter enthusiasts who beat Brian Ogle almost to death

Four black adult suspects have been arrested and charged with first- and second-degree assault in what should have been charges of attempted murder for the attack on 17-year-old Brian Ogle September 30. 
Earlier in the same week, Ogle posted "I back the blue" on social media.  That was enough to mobilize four former Sylacauga High School thugs to pistol-whip the teen on his head and viciously beat him into unconsciousness. 
Brian's constitutional right to express himself landed him in the ICU with multiple skull fractures and internal bleeding.
Three of the four suspects were arrested at their college campuses.  The other one in Sylacauga, where his mother is a city councilwoman.
The savage assault on Ogle included Quartez Walker, who allegedly used a handgun to beat the teen on the head.
Walker faces assault in the first degree, the others assault in the second degree.  They are being held on $15,000 to $20,000 bond.
Ogle's mother, Brandi Allen, stated, "I'm not happy with the amount of the bond and the charges. They should have been charged with attempted murder, by all means. They'll probably be out on bail tonight."
Allen almost lost her son.  But he's the wrong color for the suspects to be charged with a hate crime.  Reverse the skin colors in this horrific attack, and we'd be hearing about racist white America 24/7 from the White House to the DOJ to CNN.
The media doesn't care about Brian.  No national headlines.  Nothing's in it for the propagandists.  Besides, the media lemmings selling their souls for a paycheck might end up worse than Brian if they defy their corporate masters.
Brian's head got bashed in by four black guys because he's white and dared to write something nice about police.  Police chief Kelley Johnson said he made "people mad about what he posted on Facebook."  Brian didn't understand that respecting law enforcement officers can get you killed in Obama's post-racial America.
Accomplices to this crime, Al Sharpton, the Obamas, Hillary Clinton, Van Jones, the Congressional Black Caucus, Black Lives Matter, the NAACP, Loretta Lynch, and other instigators couldn't care less that Ogle faces months of rehabilitation for his injuries.
They have all proven themselves no better than ISIS leaders who recruit young people via social media to kill and maim innocent Americans.



Of the 25 people shot to death by the police in the past week, beginning with
Tyre King, at least half were white, according to the grisly tally kept by killed by police.net.

Of the 702 people shot to death by police this year, according to a database maintained by the Washington Post, 163 were black men, about 23 percent of the total. Whites made up roughly half the victims, while Hispanics, Native Americans, Asians, black women and people of mixed race made up the balance.

"The $100 million gift is an acknowledgment by a powerful section of the ruling class that the aims of the Black Lives Matter movement are aligned with those of Wall Street and the US government."

Billionaires back Black Lives Matter

Billionaires back Black Lives Matter

11 October 2016LS
The Ford Foundation, one of the most powerful private foundations in the world, with close ties to Wall Street and the US government, recently announced that it is overseeing the funneling of $100 million over six years to several organizations that play leading roles in the Black Lives Matter movement.
“We’re eager to deepen and expand this community of social justice funders,” the foundation’s announcement reads. “We want to nurture bold experiments and help the movement build the solid infrastructure that will enable it to flourish.”
Fortune Magazine wrote that the foundation’s announcement “would make anyone sit up straighter if they read it in a pitch deck [a presentation for startups seeking investor capital].” The contribution of such an immense sum of money is a gift from the ruling class that will allow Black Lives Matter to construct a bureaucracy of salaried staff and lobbyist positions. The influx of money will bring the movement greater influence through campaign contributions and integrate it even more closely with the Democratic Party and the corporate media.
The Ford Foundation will also provide various forms of consultancy and advisory assistance to a consortium of 14 groups associated with Black Lives Matter. Both the financing and the auxiliary services are to be organized through a fund called the Black-Led Movement Fund (BLMF), which is being overseen by a firm called Borealis Philanthropy.
The Ford Foundation receives the bulk of its endowment from corporate contributors and very wealthy donors through trusts and bequeathments. Established in 1936 by Ford Motor Company founder Henry Ford and his son, Edsel, it today boasts the third largest endowment of any foundation, valued at roughly $12.4 billion.
The Ford Foundation has for years maintained close ties to US military and intelligence agencies. A British historian of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Frances Stonor Saunders, described the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations in her book The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters as “conscious instruments of covert US policy, with directors and officers who were closely connected to, or even members of American intelligence.”
Today, the foundation is not formally connected to Ford Motor Company, but its board of directors is a “who’s who” of powerful corporate players, including CEOs and Wall Street lawyers. The chairperson of the board of directors is Irene Inouye, widow of deceased Democratic Senator Daniel Inouye.
The $100 million gift is an acknowledgment 

by a powerful section of the ruling class that 

the aims of the Black Lives Matter movement 

are aligned with those of Wall Street and the 

US government.
In an interview with Bloomberg News in 2015, the Ford Foundation’s current president, Darren Walker, an ex-banker at UBS, spelled out the pro-capitalist perspective underlying the foundation’s decision to bankroll Black Lives Matter:
“Inequality in many ways undermines our vision for a more just and fair world,” he said. “Indeed, the American people, and it’s not just the Trump supporters, are feeling increasingly vulnerable, increasingly insecure, and what that does is it drives wedges in our society, in our democracy. Inequality is bad for our democracy. It kills aspirations and dreams and makes us more cynical as a people… What kind of Capitalism do we want to have in America?”
The foundation’s support for Black Lives Matter is an investment in the defense of the profit system. Black Lives Matter portrays the world as divided along racial lines, proclaiming on its web site that it “sees itself as part of a global black family.”
It claims that black people are “extended families and ‘villages’ that collectively care for one another, and especially ‘our’ children…” It explicitly rejects the notion that any other section of society has the right to raise grievances of its own. Its group history page notes: “Not just all lives. Black lives. Please do not change the conversation by talking about how your life matters, too.”
The petty-bourgeois leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement are now poised to exercise a significant degree of political influence directed at securing privileges within the political elite. A quick look at the founders of Black Lives Matter gives a sense of the opportunist and self-promotional character of the group as a whole. The official Black Lives Matter organization was founded by three people: Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors and Opal Tometi. The three met as members of BOLD (Black Organizing for Leadership and Dignity). BOLD is one of the 14 organizations now being funded by the Black-Led Movement Fund.
One of these founders, Garza, runs an organization called the National Domestic Workers Alliance, on whose board sits Alta Starr. Starr oversees a fund at the Ford Foundation. She is also on the board of a foundation backed by billionaire George Soros, the Open Society Foundation’s Southern Initiative.
Patrisse Cullers is the director of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. This organization was founded by Van Jones, a Democrat who worked under Obama as a special advisor on “green jobs, enterprise and innovation.” He is also a long time contributor to CNN. This organization also receives funds from the Open Society Foundation.
A leaked document from an October 2015 board meeting of the Soros-funded US Programs/Open Society revealed that the organization provided $650,000 “to invest in technical assistance and support for the groups at the core of the burgeoning #BlackLivesMatter movement.” The document notes that the board planned to discuss the difficulty of dealing with a de-centralized movement: “What happens when you want to throw a lot of money at a moment[sic], but there isn’t any place for it to go?” It was also raised that the Soros name could discredit Black Lives Matter if the public became aware of his financial support.
Many of the organizations on the list of Ford recipients are also members of the newly-formed “Movement for Black Lives,” which has published a policy agenda document centered on demands for greater government financing of black-owned businesses and institutions.
In an earlier period, nationalist movements such as the Black Panthers, however politically disoriented, had a genuine element of social struggle and conflict with the state. While their political program was of a petty-bourgeois character, they had a significant base of support among the oppressed. This was the period of the mass civil rights movement against Jim Crow segregation in the South and the urban rebellions in the North.
In response to the upheavals of the late 1960s, a section of the ruling class sought to cultivate a base of support among the more privileged sections of minorities that would be loyal to the status quo. As a result of policies such as affirmative action, social inequality among African-Americans has soared, with a small elite holding positions of power in corporate America and the state. This found its apotheosis in the election of Barack Obama to preside as president over a historic transfer of wealth to the financial aristocracy following the Wall Street crash of 2008.
These social transformations are reflected in the political outlook of the Black Lives Matter movement, which is devoid of any genuine element of social protest or democratic struggle. The agenda of these organizations, as underscored by the support of groups like the Ford Foundation, has nothing to do with the real social and economic grievances of millions of workers and young people of any race or ethnicity. They speak for highly privileged sections of the middle class who are fighting over the distribution of wealth within the top 10 percent of the population.
In the face of rising popular opposition to war, police violence and social inequality, the decision to advance the racialist program of Black Lives Matter is aimed at dividing the working class and preventing the emergence of an independent and unified working class movement against the capitalist system.
Gabriel Black

OBAMA'S CRONY BANKSTERS - “Existential crisis” dominates IMF meeting on world economy

“Putting it simply, growth has been too low for too long and benefiting too few,” she continued, with the social and political consequences arising from high inequality “becoming all too apparent.”




“Existential crisis” dominates IMF meeting on world economy

“Existential crisis” dominates IMF meeting on world economy

By Nick Beams 
11 October 2016
The annual meeting of the International Monetary Fund held over the weekend in Washington did not confront an immediate crisis, such as in 2009 in the midst of the meltdown of the global financial system, or in 2012, when the euro was under threat.
But in a profound sense, the meeting faced something even 
more serious. The gathering of the world’s finance ministers 
and central bankers was marked by what the Financial 
Times described as an “existential crisis”—fears of growing 
protectionism and divisions in the world economy and the 
implications of the mounting hostility of broad masses of 
people all over the world, most significantly in the advanced 
countries, to the prevailing economic and political order.
The participants chose to label these fears as “Trump angst,” describing the Republican presidential contender as a sort of “Voldemort for the global economic order,” a reference to the villain in the Harry Potter stories whose “name is only spoken in hushed tones and behind closed doors.”
Trump, however is only a particularly vulgar expression of the decay and disintegration of the post-World War II economic order and the rupture in official politics it is producing.
IMF managing director Christine Lagarde touched on some of the growing concerns, while failing to give any indication as to how they might be addressed. Advanced economies, she said in her speech to open the meeting, remained “stuck in a low-growth, low-investment, low-inflation cycle,” and while growth in emerging markets was picking up, commodity exporters were “struggling with low commodity prices.”
“Putting it simply, growth has been too low for too long and benefiting too few,” she continued, with the social and political consequences arising from high inequality “becoming all too apparent.”
Trade had become a political football and supporters of economic integration and cooperation were “on the defensive.”
Reviewing the principles on which the IMF was founded in 1944, amid the economic carnage caused by the Depression and World War II, she noted that if the “founders were here today, they would surely be concerned. They shared a conviction that trade and openness are beneficial to those who embrace them. They agreed that multilateral dialogue is key to the stability of the global economy … Now, those principles are facing their biggest test in decades.”
Her remarks on the dangers to the IMF’s founding principles were underscored by Suma Chakrabarti, the president of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. “In my lifetime I cannot remember anything like the scepticism about these fundamental values that we see today,” he said.
Some of the deep-going problems of the global economic and political order were the subject of a column by former US treasury secretary Lawrence Summers published in the Financial Times on Monday. Summing up the atmosphere at the IMF gathering, he pointed to the “spectre of secular stagnation and inadequate economic growth” on the one hand, and the “ascendant populism and global disintegration” on the other. The “pervasive concern” was that “traditional leaders were losing their grip and the global economy was entering into unexplored and dangerous territory.”
Summers has held the view for some years that the financial crisis, while very serious, is not the underlying cause of the present “secular stagnation”—a term first coined in the 1930s to describe a situation of ongoing low investment and low economic growth. Rather, low interest rates reflect an overabundance of savings relative to investment that started to emerge as far back as the mid-1980s, and this is the basic cause of the failure of predictions that growth would be restored in the years following the 2008 crash.
“After seven years of economic over-optimism,” he wrote in his column, “there is growing awareness that challenges are not so much a legacy of the financial crisis as of deep structural changes in the global economy.”
While Summers did not make the point, his remarks bring to mind much of the economic commentary of the 1920s, when it was argued that if only the correct monetary policies were pursued, it would be possible to return to pre-World War I conditions. Those attempts foundered and the economic crisis intensified, leading to the Great Depression and ultimately World War II, because the eruption of the Great War was itself the expression of a breakdown in the functioning of the global capitalist economy, the conditions for which had built up in the preceding period.
On the present situation, Summers noted there was “increasing reason to doubt” that the industrial world was capable of “simultaneously enjoying reasonable interest rates that support savers, financial stability and adequate economic growth at the same time. Saving has become overabundant, and new investment insufficient and stagnation secular rather than transient.”
It was hardly surprising that when economic growth fell short year after year and its beneficiaries were a small subset of the population, electorates turn surly, losing confidence “both in the competence of economic leaders and in their commitment to serving the wider public rather than the global elite.”
Summers is a Keynesian in his present economic outlook and he bases his policy prescriptions on what he perceives to be a deficiency in economic demand. But falling demand in itself explains nothing. It is just another description of ongoing stagnation.
The key question is why has demand, particularly investment demand, which is the dynamic force in the capitalist economy, declined? The answer to this question is to be found not in the relations as they appear on the surface of the market economy, but within the sphere of production.
In the capitalist economy, production is motivated at the most fundamental level not by the need for economic growth or a desire to meet social need, but by the drive for profit and nothing else. If profit rates exhibit a tendency to decline, investment is cut back, leading in turn to lower economic growth, giving rise to a further decline in investment spending, resulting in long-term lower growth or even “secular stagnation.”
These basic considerations are crucial in assessing the prescriptions offered by Summers and other like-minded would-be reformers of the capitalist system.
According to Summers, the task is to find a path forward through which international co-operation is supported and enhanced. This means focusing on the “concerns of a broad middle class rather than of global elites.” Accordingly, “austerity economics” must be rejected in favour of “investment economics,” and the “focus of international economic cooperation more generally needs to shift from opportunities for capital to better outcomes for labour.”
However, these two goals are incompatible within the capitalist economy. The decline in growth is the outcome of a decline in investment, which in turn reflects a fall in profit rates and profit expectations.
While profits can be accumulated for a period through financial speculation and manipulation, in the final analysis they rest on the extraction of surplus value from the working class. Thus, to shift opportunities from capital to labour means a lowering in the rate of profit, a further decline in investment and ongoing secular stagnation, if not worse.
In short, there is an objective contradiction between the political objectives espoused by Summers and underlying objective economic relations. The very measures he advocates to stem what he calls “angry politics” serve to worsen the economic situation, and the measures required to produce a restoration of profits can only bring further eruptions from below.
It is not the first time that such contradictions have made their appearance in global economics and politics. They were clearly laid out by Leon Trotsky in a speech to the Third Congress of the Communist International in June 1921. Analysing the situation confronting the ruling classes following the breakdown of the capitalist order which had erupted with World War I, Trotsky noted that “in order to restore the class equilibrium, they have to ruin the economy; in order to restore the economy, they have to disrupt the class equilibrium. That is the vicious circle that grips the economy and its superstructure.”
Marx drew out long ago that bourgeois economists believed no problem would ever arise in the capitalist economy if only it proceeded according to the text book. However, the text book is written on the assumption that capitalism, based on private profit, is a natural and therefore eternal system of socio-economic organisation, and thus contradictions such as falling profits, arising from its very foundations, are excluded or papered over.
In the real world, however, as opposed to the text book, these contradictions cannot be papered over, much less overcome by appeals from Summers and others and for the global elites to “see reason” and change course.
As in the period of the 1920s and 1930s, they will only intensify, leading to greater global conflicts as the struggle for markets and profits intensifies—a situation that leads ultimately to war—coupled with deeper attacks on the working class and the development of ever more authoritarian forms of rule to suppress the anger from below.
The only solution to the deepening crisis is not a series of impossible reforms. Rather, the task is the transformation of the increasing anger and hostility to the global economic and political order into a consciousness political movement based on the program of international socialism to overthrow the outmoded capitalist profit system itself. That political lesson has been underscored by the IMF meeting.


Documents obtained by Rep. Duncan Hunter detail the assistance of the Mexican government in getting Haitian refugees into the US illegally. In the last year, more than 6,000 Haitians have arrived at the border near San Diego with thousands more in...

DHS report: Mexican government helping thousands of Haitians enter the US illegally

Documents obtained by Rep. Duncan Hunter detail the assistance of the Mexican government in getting Haitian refugees into the US illegally.
In the last year, more than 6,000 Haitians have arrived at the border near San Diego with thousands more in Mexico waiting to get in. 
“Haitians have forged a dangerous and clandestine new path to get to the United States,” says the document, which lays out in detail the route and the prices paid along the way for smugglers, bus tickets and, where they can be obtained legally, transit documents.
Their trek begins in Brazil and traces a 7,100-mile route up the west coast of South America and Central America, crossing 11 countries and taking as long as four months.
Some countries are more welcoming than others, according to the document, which was reviewed by The Washington Times. Nicaragua is listed as being particularly vigilant about deporting the Haitian migrants if they are caught, so smugglers there charge $1,000.
While traveling through Central American countries, the Haitians will claim to be from Congo. They believe authorities in Central America aren’t likely to go through the hassle of deporting them to West Africa if they are caught, the Homeland Security Department said.
Smugglers charge $200 through Ecuador and $300 each through Guatemala and Colombia, the document says.
Mexico, though, is more accommodating to the migrants. It stops them at its southern border in Tapachula, processes them and — though they don’t have legal entry papers — “they receive a 20-day transit document” giving them enough time to get a bus across Mexico, arriving eventually in Tijuana, just south of San Diego.
Once in the United States, many of the Haitians claim asylum and fight deportation in cases that can drag on for years, guaranteeing the migrants a foothold in the country. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said it received referrals to conduct credible fear screenings, the first part of an affirmative asylum claim, for 523 Haitians over the past year.
Other Haitians who are apprehended are put on a slow deportation track, giving them a chance to hide in the shadows along with other illegal immigrants. Southern Florida is a particularly attractive destination for Haitians, the document said.
Haitians are the latest nationality to surge into the United States, along with Central Americans enticed by the belief that lax enforcement policies under President Obama will enable them to stay, even if it means living in the shadows.
Mexico facilitates the transit of illegal aliens heading for the US so they don't have to take care of them. As long as they quickly exit Mexico, they will be assisted by the government.
This is hardly the actions of a friendly government who apparently can't be bothered deporting these illegals themelves. It's cheaper and easier just to send them on their way into the US where they can game the system so that they can stay indefinitely.
Between the influx of illegal aliens and legal refugees, hundreds of thousands of poor, illiterate, peasants with no skills to market in a modern economy are being placed in communities all across America. These communities are expected to house, clothe, feed, and educate the newcomers with little or no help from Washington. The strain placed on local communities means that citizens and others who are here legally get shorted on benefits their tax dollars support.
Not a satisfactory state of affairs. 

 THE OBAMA DOCTRINE: Destroy America With Open Borders

As Breitbart Texas has been reporting, the area known as the Rio Grande Valley has been pushed to the forefront of the illegal immigration debate. Mexican cartel smugglers have taken full advantage of the system in order to maximize their profits from human smuggling as well as the smuggling of illegal aliens. In 2014, Mexico’s Gulf Cartel was able to make approximately $38 million in a matter of months off human smuggling alone.

Hillary Clinton and Mexico announce Obama’s AMNESTY for all Democrat voting illegals!


"More than 728,000 illegal immigrants have been shielded from being deported and 


granted work permits through President Barack Obama’s 2012 executive amnesty 


program, according to the Migration Policy Institute."

THE OBAMA DOCTRINE: Let the Mexicans Destroy America

…. Amnesty will destroy the GOP, white and black middle America, keep wages depressed and build the LA RAZA SUPREMACY DEMOCRAT PARTY


EACH ILLEGAL WILL COST THE AMERICAN PEOPLE $640,000 and then they go breed anchor babies for more!